Traveling in Europe, watched it in Poland! It's a good 'summer' popcorn movie. The closest this thing comes to any notion of credible science is probably the basic ornithology of the Mutas, everything else is poppycock. Enjoy it for what is is, classic gung-ho blow shit up American movie making.

Assuming your post has nothing to do with the one-time mention of NN...

Seriously? Climate change is not politics, it is scientific consensus. Ars is a science and technology "blog". Why would they not mention something like that when the movie has obvious reference to it? Anyway, if Climate Change is political, it is because of the deniers and the money from like-minded, rich individuals... not because it is inherently controversial, like abortion.

You really found Elizabeth Olsen's character not "forgettable and vacant"?

I don't know that I can lay the blame for the human portions of this movie at the feet of the actors. Watanabe is better than he was presented. It must be the writers, or the director - I just don't know. Watanabe spent the entire movie looking stunned, and acting stunned - very 1-dimensional. I wanted more out of him. The acting was alright, I have no specific complaints about it. It's just that the characters weren't that good.

You've got action hero, who starts out as an EOD expert - who knows nukes, clockwork nukes, and HALO jumping. And only served a 14-month tour. Wha?

There were a bunch of loss-of-believability moments for me. Really, they had to bring in nukes on a train? The carrier group they were a part of didn't have any?

Now don't get me wrong - the movie was incredibly entertaining. I plan to see it again (even got free tickets thanks to the $#&(@ teenagers two rows back, but that's another rant). The creatures were AWESOME in every way. It was pretty much everything I was hoping for. Just not everything it could have been.

How can you make a movie about a giant lizard blowing stuff up the most boring film in the universe? Watch the latest Godzilla reboot to find out! Bring Tylenol because your brain will start hurting when you are trying to make sense of it. As a bonus, its really offensive to families of Fukushima victims.

I wasn't planning on seeing the movie but your post made it seem like it might be much better than I expected. However, your statement that "When Godzilla first came about, no one yet knew about climate change." is incorrect.

While it may not have been common knowledge, since it was before the advent of social media tools, Arrhenius, Callendar and others had come to understand that humans were affecting the planet in ways that Nature, left to itself, would not.

I think Hollywood is in serious trouble now that the comic book era is *finally* drawing to a close.

Because if there is one thing that can save Hollywood from the creative hellhole it is lying in, its yet another superhero movie or remake.

Actually, as a guy that watches an insane amount of movies, I have to admit that it seems we are out of the Hollywood dark ages. It might just be me (I doubt it), but there have been more and more movies coming out that I am actually interested in, and actually turn out to be satisfying to watch.

To me, the worst period in movies coming out of Hollywood was about 5 years ago. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't care one way or the other about comic book movies.

World War Z might make for decent human drama, but its zombies defeat the military by act of plot and stupidity, not because it focuses 'intently' on modern military methods or lack of utility thereof.

I guess there are always going to be ways to find faults. I think a lot of people are missing the point. This is a tribute to Godzilla, which basically means, a tribute to Godzilla movies. Taken in that regard, the way it was done is close to perfect. Sure, it has some weak points. But overall, I found it entertaining from start to end. It was 10 times better than any superhero movie put out lately.

And Godzilla? Well, you must know by now even if you haven't seen it, Godzilla kicks some serious butt. You have to wait for it, sure. The alternative would be 2 hours of monster fighting. I don't think that would really work. If you love Godzilla, how could you not just be amazed? And let's face it, if you don't love Godzilla, you should be kicked in the gonads.

xsvtoys is right that this is a tribute to Godzilla and the Godzilla movies. Its worth watching it to just to see the monsters fight, but it really got to me a few times with a couple of gigantic plot holes.

Why, oh why does anybody think that attacking something that eats nuclear radiation with a nuke is a good idea.. even when they already know it had been tried before with no effect. Pouring more gas on a fire is NOT GOING TO PUT IT OUT!!

Nukes being moved by train.. when you have a nearby hungry monster that is looking for nuclear radiation to eat?(Better yet, WHY ENGAGE THE FREAKING TRAIN WHISTLE WHEN YOUR TRYING TO SNEAK BY!!)

Last one I will talk about is why store something that eats radiation in a facility that stores NUCLEAR WASTE!!

xsvtoys is right that this is a tribute to Godzilla and the Godzilla movies. Its worth watching it to just to see the monsters fight, but it really got to me a few times with a couple of gigantic plot holes.

Why, oh why does anybody think that attacking something that eats nuclear radiation with a nuke is a good idea.. even when they already know it had been tried before with no effect. Pouring more gas on a fire is NOT GOING TO PUT IT OUT!!

Nukes being moved by train.. when you have a nearby hungry monster that is looking for nuclear radiation to eat?(Better yet, WHY ENGAGE THE FREAKING TRAIN WHISTLE WHEN YOUR TRYING TO SNEAK BY!!)

Last one I will talk about is why store something that eats radiation in a facility that stores NUCLEAR WASTE!!

Ahh.. glad to get those 3 giant things that bothered me off my chest.

The rationale for using the bomb was a bit odd, but not that bad, I thought. They chose a nuclear bomb because it could work both as bait, and because the physical force of an H-bomb blast should be enough to kill the monster. They weren't counting on the radiation to hurt it.

I saw it this afternoon... 5 months of anticipation since seeing the teaser during the last Hobbit movie, damn!

It was great, and just THAT close to being awesome. I felt like it needed more fighting, BUT unlike many reviews I read, I thought the human parts of it were good and not overly drawn out. The only thing in that regard that annoyed me was the "one man happens to always be right in the center of everything that happens." That aspect felt like Cloverfield.

... but it really got to me a few times with a couple of gigantic plot holes.

Why, oh why does anybody think that attacking something that eats nuclear radiation with a nuke is a good idea.. even when they already know it had been tried before with no effect. Pouring more gas on a fire is NOT GOING TO PUT IT OUT!!

Nukes being moved by train.. when you have a nearby hungry monster that is looking for nuclear radiation to eat?(Better yet, WHY ENGAGE THE FREAKING TRAIN WHISTLE WHEN YOUR TRYING TO SNEAK BY!!)

Last one I will talk about is why store something that eats radiation in a facility that stores NUCLEAR WASTE!!

Ahh.. glad to get those 3 giant things that bothered me off my chest.

The nuke they wanted to use to kill it was going to work on two counts. As bait and the way to kill it. They mention that it was tried before and they said that the one there were using this time would make the ones they used in the 50s look like firecrackers. Thus hoping the radiation would lure them in and the blast would kill them all.

Not sure what they went with the train for, think it had to do with because it didn't work on electricity.

And they stored it in a facility that stores nuclear waste because the scientist that is the expert on the subject said it was dead and they needed a place to hide it so they put it where no one would come looking for it.

It's the sort of thing where they try and give it just enough explanation to keep things moving so it's really easy to miss.

I argue that the characters served their purpose for the most part. They didn't need to be complicated characters with tragedy and grace all mixed into one; because the movie didn't really have the time to deal with the little people, it is after all a movie about monsters.

Elizabeth Olsen as the terrified ER Doc/loving wife played her part absolutely fine for the amount of screen time she got. Aaron Taylor-Johnson again I feel again I feel provided adequate substance. He is a skeptical, estranged son in the first half, and then in the second half he is a sailor who wants to get back home, so he does what he must. It also helps that he happens to be EOD, so he can kinda bumble his way along into the action. I agree that his character seemed one-dimensional, but really that's all that the movie needed, and had the time for.

The military men were just doing what military men do - trying to hardest to achieve their goal which was to destroy monsters and save the world. Perhaps they needed more emotional conflict about their deployment of ICBM warheads in the middle of SF Bay, but again I feel that if we were to spend too much time on this, the movie would quickly become bloated and boring. Also Ken's character was enough to be effective in providing emotional conflict.

Bryan Cranston - pretty much perfect.

However, I will say that Ken Watanabe and Juliette Binoche I feel were criminally underused (and Ken was a little in danger of becoming a caricature). Also, on the story side - I don't quite understand how the helicopters always got to the monster exit holes after the ground team had practically completed their reconnaissance - but that's a minor quibble.

What I really liked about the movie was the subtext to the story. Giant sex-crazed radioactive monsters who have a thing for nuclear missiles, rampaging around the world while the puny humans can do absolutely nothing.

I thought so. Certainly not jump in your face type 3D, and made it feel like I was actually there for the action.

Great movie imo too. One of my favorites was when Godzilla moved, they made his flesh move like a man in a suit. Gave me goosebumps remembering watching the classic monster movies as a child with my grandfather.

I thought so. Certainly not jump in your face type 3D, and made it feel like I was actually there for the action.

Great movie imo too. One of my favorites was when Godzilla moved, they made his flesh move like a man in a suit. Gave me goosebumps remembering watching the classic monster movies as a child with my grandfather.

You need to read this prior to thinking about seeing Godzilla in 3D.

Kirill: What’s been your experience so far in shooting 3D, and what are your general thoughts on adding one more dimension to the film experience? Does it have its place in the big-budget sci-fi productions, or even beyond that in what we’ve recently seen in “The Great Gatsby”?

Seamus: I think it’s very much a marketing gimmick. I saw “Gravity” last night, and I thought for the first time that it made really good use of that. “Hugo” looked pretty good in 3D as well.

As a cinematographer I absolutely despise it. To shoot native 3D is so complex. The machinery involved completely goes against any kind of fluidity to the camera. It takes so long to set up. We actually started shooting “The Avengers” on real 3D using Red cameras and AnimaTechnica rig. After one day of shooting the director said that we’re not doing it. Sam Jackson and Stellan Skarsgård said that we better get our act together or they are out. It really got that serious. Each lens change was 45 minutes, it was a disaster to align the cameras up. In the end we did it in post which is a much better way of doing it. You can dynamic shifting dimensionality during the shot, play with it quite a bit. But I really hope it goes away.

Kirill: But if you’re only talking about the technical sides, like the bulkiness of the equipment or changing lenses, that might get much better in five or ten years, as with any hardware technology that has a lot of money invested in it.

Seamus: I’m sure it will. But the problem is that aside from the technical difficulties of achieving a 3D shot, there’s something about the film in 2D. We don’t want an impression of reality when we go to the cinema, we don’t want that brightness, I mean I don’t want it anyway. I like the inherent flatness, and creating depth with lighting cues, with focus, with darkness and light. That is, to me, essentially cinematographic.

Then, when we get to the exhibition stage, everything’s darker. You wear the glasses which is actually a pain that corrals your vision and experience. It’s just not fun in cinema, and I always get a headache when I watch a 3D movie. Everything seems fuzzier. I don’t think that it looks as good, and I’m hoping that it will go away. 3D sales are dropping significantly, and kids in the cinema are not responding either. A lot of the studios are staying away from it now. In fact, “Godzilla” will get a predominantly 2D release, with a 3D version.

I thought so. Certainly not jump in your face type 3D, and made it feel like I was actually there for the action.

Great movie imo too. One of my favorites was when Godzilla moved, they made his flesh move like a man in a suit. Gave me goosebumps remembering watching the classic monster movies as a child with my grandfather.

I thought so. Certainly not jump in your face type 3D, and made it feel like I was actually there for the action.

Great movie imo too. One of my favorites was when Godzilla moved, they made his flesh move like a man in a suit. Gave me goosebumps remembering watching the classic monster movies as a child with my grandfather.

Cool. I do agree with their IMAX recommendation, the movie was huge in terms of 'size' and the larger screen really helped to put things into perspective especially with the long range shots, while the monsters were walking through cities.

I went to see Godzilla last night. It seemed like a decent film for the most part, but contained too many unrealistic and idiotic moments, combined with plot conveniences and discontinuity, for me to truly enjoy.

Spoiler: show

Plot convenience: Muta are shown seeking out and imbibing radioactive materiel as a source of energy, yet when it comes to the nuclear warhead that was planned to destroy them, they casually ignore it at a few different points in time, purely so it's still available later on.

Plot convenience: Mr Hero needs to get back to the mainland to see his wife in SF. Makes a stop at Hawaii. Kaiju just happen to end up at Hawaii, so that he can be heroic, yet again.

Plot convenience: Mr Hero happens to be the only person in the entire US military who is capable of rigging a nuclear warhead to be detonated by an old analogue timer. Is also the only person who can undo what he did in the first place.

Plot convenience: Why does a primeval creature like the Muta have an EMP as a weapon, perfectly designed by evolution long before any electronic devices were ever made? What effect would an EMP have on any other Kaiju?

Plot Convenience:Muta are able to ascertain, while mid-kaiju battle, that an explosion some distance away just happened to destroy all of its eggsac/larvae/whatever and is completely distressed by this. Also hears a boat horn and instantly ascertains that a nuclear warhead is aboard/that the people who are onboard also caused the explosion... I'm still actually unsure of the Muta's particular beef here.

Discontinuity: The bus on the bridge has its path blocked by a suspension cable on the bridge. The scene cuts away and shows Godzilla breaking the second cable after which the bus is completely free to continue driving, as if the first cable never existed. Not to mention the fact that the Golden Gate bridge is a SUSPENSION bridge. If either cable was cut, the bride would collapse completely. In this scene BOTH are cut.

At one point I said, "Plasma Cannon charging" and then laughed as it turned out I was entirely right.

That's about all I can think of right now, but there were SO many more.